http://www.colintnelson.com
Mystery Suspense AuthorThu, 13 Jul 2017 09:34:53 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.5Female Judges Take Over Justice Systemhttp://www.colintnelson.com/female-judges-take-justice-system/
http://www.colintnelson.com/female-judges-take-justice-system/#respondThu, 13 Jul 2017 09:34:53 +0000http://www.colintnelson.com/?p=2573When I started practicing criminal trial law, forty years ago, (ouch!) I recall that in my judicial district of about 60 judges, only two were women. In the prosecutor’s criminal division there was only one woman out of about twenty male prosecutors. As they say, it was a different world then. The days when a male judge could …

]]>When I started practicing criminal trial law, forty years ago, (ouch!) I recall that in my judicial district of about 60 judges, only two were women. In the prosecutor’s criminal division there was only one woman out of about twenty male prosecutors. As they say, it was a different world then. The days when a male judge could pull out the bottom drawer on his desk and spit into it, or the sexist jokes told back in chambers in front of female lawyers, or the judge who was so intent on dictating an opinion, he followed his court reporter into the bathroom—and didn’t see anything wrong about it.

Luckily for everyone, the numbers have changed. See story:http://www.startribune.com/number-of-female-chief-justices-for-district-courts-in-minnesota-reaches-historic-levels/432562803/

In Minnesota, 40+% of judges in the state are female. That compares to about 30% in the Dakotas and only 20% in neighboring Wisconsin.

What’s the big deal?

Unlike other professions, the practice of law is really a people business. Of course, there are laws and rules and courts that try to impose some order in life. But at it’s heart, being a lawyer is about solving people problems—some of them life-threatening. The job is so difficult, we need all the brains and experience we can get. Both male and female judges bring different skills to the job.

Particularly at the trial level courts, it’s important to match the composition of the bench to the clientele the courts serve. Although few females are involved in the criminal system, many women are involved in civil lawsuits. Some cases benefit from a different experience in life. Sexual assault cases come to mind, for instance. Beyond that, when people come into a court (most of them for the first and last time), it’s important they feel the judges, in some fashion, mirror the groups they come from. Both male and female judges encourage the acceptance of decisions.

These numbers also lead to a wider diversity beyond gender. Race, nationality, background, all give more to the courts and the community. In the criminal area, most accused people are African American. I can’t generalize, but many former black clients of mine felt, at least, there was one other person in the courtroom who may be fair.

This entire movement reminds me of why my days as a draftee in the U.S. Army were so valuable. Today, we have a volunteer army that doesn’t attract as wide a variety of Americans as the draft did. Here were the men who slept in my bay (dorm): a Southern black man from Alabama. Next to his bed was Big Red, a giant of a red-haired man from Alabama. The Jewish guy from Brooklyn was next in line. Bill, a college grad and journalist from upstate New York. Dave came from California and was a surfer while not managing a McDonalds. And Jared who came from Texas and was an oil roustabout. Finally, Deece, a dark black man from Newark, who scared everyone until he got talking about his girlfriend—then he cried. I learned how each American brought different things into my life. Our judicial system is the same. Female judges are just the start of a broader inclusion of people.

]]>http://www.colintnelson.com/female-judges-take-justice-system/feed/0Author Anne Lamott Tells the Truthhttp://www.colintnelson.com/author-anne-lamott-tells-truth/
http://www.colintnelson.com/author-anne-lamott-tells-truth/#respondMon, 10 Jul 2017 09:03:53 +0000http://www.colintnelson.com/?p=2569Author, teacher, and really funny woman, Anne Lamott has always inspired my writing. She’s written several books herself, but her most well-known book is, Bird by Bird. It’s a book about both writing and life. I know—there are probably more books on self-discovery than there are people interested in really discovering themselves. But this one’s different.

]]>Author, teacher, and really funny woman, Anne Lamott has always inspired my writing. She’s written several books herself, but her most well-known book is, Bird by Bird. It’s a book about both writing and life. I know—there are probably more books on self-discovery than there are people interested in really discovering themselves. But this one’s different.

Anne weaves her personal history (not too much) throughout lessons on writing: character, plot, settings, tone, etc. She goes on to show how engaging in something that drives you passionately can also save you from your past problems.

All good writers always strive to become better writers. Anne Lamott reminds us that most of us, in fact, are horrible writers—until we revise and edit. That can make even dirt shine.

I re-read her book every year and discover something I hadn’t seen previously. Something valuable. Beyond her advice books, Anne was asked to speak for a TED Talks program. It was forwarded to me and I thought you would like it. She calls it Twelve Things I Know to be True. If only I could come up with four or more—

Hoped you found it helpful. Back to her book, Bird by Bird, what does the title mean?

It came from a story Anne told about her brother, while in school, working on a paper about birds. The day before it was due, he still hadn’t started. The immensity of the problem and all the work required stalled him. His father advised not to look at the mountain of work, but to simply start the project, bird by bird.

]]>http://www.colintnelson.com/author-anne-lamott-tells-truth/feed/0Judge Writes Letter to Yanez Trial Juryhttp://www.colintnelson.com/judge-writes-letter-yanez-trial-jury/
http://www.colintnelson.com/judge-writes-letter-yanez-trial-jury/#respondFri, 07 Jul 2017 21:22:24 +0000http://www.colintnelson.com/?p=2565In an unusual but legally appropriate way, the judge in the Jeronimo Yanez trial wrote a letter to the jury. Often, a judge will invite the jurors back into the chambers (office) after a trial has finished. The public gets a chance to see what the office looks like and can ask questions of the judge about the …

]]>In an unusual but legally appropriate way, the judge in the Jeronimo Yanez trial wrote a letter to the jury. Often, a judge will invite the jurors back into the chambers (office) after a trial has finished. The public gets a chance to see what the office looks like and can ask questions of the judge about the trial or other aspects of the justice system.

In a suburb of St. Paul, Officer Jeronimo Yanez stopped Philando Castile for a broken tail light and ended by shooting Castile to death. The officer was charged with a low level homicide (second degree manslaughter) and the jury of mixed race people found the officer not guilty.

That set off protests and complaints from many quarters that the jury system was worthless and the entire justice system was racist and not fair. The judge, William Leary, wrote the letter as a result. See the contents here:

Why did so many people protest the finding of Not Guilty? After many years working as a criminal lawyer, here’s what I think:

Because of the pervasive influence of sports in our society, people view media coverage of trials in the same way. Criminal trials are intentionally adversarial, so the confusion of a sports event with a trial is likely. If their side doesn’t win, people get upset.

Some people see racism in every aspect of our society. I agree that is true to some extent. Racism also exists in the criminal justice system. But in my years of experience, I have been encouraged by the juries I’ve tried cases in front of—they make a real effort to not be racist. In fact, the Yanez trial jury included two people of color.

People get their information about a case from the media. And the media’s purpose is not to inform or educate the public—the media wants to get the public’s attention by upsetting them. Contrary to this practice, a jury gets all the facts, many of which the public never learns about. The jury’s decision is based on information that may be quite different from the TV news shows.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding by people of what a jury is supposed to do. A finding of not guilty does not mean the jury condoned the officer’s actions or, in some way, thought his actions were okay. They were charged with making a decision as follows: did the evidence presented by the prosecution convince the Yanez trial jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Yanez was guilty of a crime of second degree manslaughter? They answered that narrow question with a no.

It’s still upsetting to all of us. Many of the issues touched on in the Yanez trial are on the minds of people. The jury is not tasked with correcting racism, training police, teaching gun owners how to act around police, etc. We want answers and justice. To put that burden on a jury in one case is unrealistic and something we really don’t want to do—it would ruin the system we have that presently works well.

]]>http://www.colintnelson.com/judge-writes-letter-yanez-trial-jury/feed/0Death, Jeronimo Yanez, and a Not Guilty Verdicthttp://www.colintnelson.com/death-jeronimo-yanez-not-guilty-verdict/
http://www.colintnelson.com/death-jeronimo-yanez-not-guilty-verdict/#respondTue, 20 Jun 2017 21:44:43 +0000http://www.colintnelson.com/?p=2555In St. Paul, Minnesota the end of a tragic event has finally happened. A police officer, Jeronimo Yanez, shot and killed Philando Castile in a traffic stop in a suburb of St. Paul. It triggered protests, questions, and crying. It forced a searing look at the interactions between police and citizens. Statistics show that the chances of anyone …

]]>In St. Paul, Minnesota the end of a tragic event has finally happened. A police officer, Jeronimo Yanez, shot and killed Philando Castile in a traffic stop in a suburb of St. Paul. It triggered protests, questions, and crying. It forced a searing look at the interactions between police and citizens. Statistics show that the chances of anyone being killed during a police stop are extremely low. But when a death happens, it’s tragic for everyone.

But this case was different. It started as a traffic stop for a broken tail light. When Officer Jeronimo Yanez approached the driver, Philando Castile, Castile informed the officer he was licensed to carry a gun and had one. Within seconds, the officer fired five times and killed Philano Castile. A dashboard video in the police car showed some of the incident. Just after the shooting, Mr. Castile’s girlfriend filmed smart phone video also.

Probably motivated to some extent by the publicity and protests, the local County Attorney charged the officer with Involuntary Manslaughter—a low level of homicide. The officer pled not guilty and the case went to trial. After several days of trial and deliberation, the jury found the officer not guilty of all counts. See the story in New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/police-shooting-trial-philando-castile.html?_r=0

I have practiced criminal law for 40 years and tried dozens of jury trials including homicides. Many people wonder: How could the jury find the Officer Jeronimo Yanez not guilty?

Here are some of the possible reasons:

When we read or watch the videos of these events, we tend to look at both sides and weigh each one against the other to try and determine who’s at fault. A jury doesn’t look at it that way. They are instructed to look at the government’s evidence and determine if it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Jeronimo Yanez committed a crime.

In addition, the media does not present facts that educate or inform us—instead, they present facts that are sensational. This means we often don’t get the same, complete picture of the evidence that a jury does during a trial—which could lead to a very different conclusion.

After the verdict, one of the jurors spoke to the media and said that 10 out of the 12 jurors early on voted for an acquittal. That tells me the government’s case was weak from the beginning. Perhaps, the case should never have been charged in the first place.

I still maintain that it’s hard to convict police officers acting in the exercise of their duties. We give them a lot of discretion and the legal authority to use deadly force, when they determine it’s necessary. As citizens, we also tend to support them when they carry-out their duties.

In all my years working in criminal law, I’ve known many police officers. I can tell you that not only is this case a tragedy for the family of the victim, Philando Castile, but also for Officer Jeronimo Yanez and his family. Not one police officer I’ve known has wanted to kill anyone. If they do, it weighs on them for the rest of their lives.

]]>http://www.colintnelson.com/death-jeronimo-yanez-not-guilty-verdict/feed/0What’s Wrong with the Bill Cosby Jury?http://www.colintnelson.com/whats-wrong-bill-cosby-jury/
http://www.colintnelson.com/whats-wrong-bill-cosby-jury/#respondFri, 16 Jun 2017 22:34:39 +0000http://www.colintnelson.com/?p=2551As I’m sure you’re all aware, after years of lurid headlines in the media, Bill Cosby was accused and tried on several criminal counts of sexual assault. His trial is approaching the 10th day in Pennsylvania—with the jury unable to come to a decision. I worked for over 30 years as a criminal lawyer and tried over 100 …

]]>As I’m sure you’re all aware, after years of lurid headlines in the media, Bill Cosby was accused and tried on several criminal counts of sexual assault. His trial is approaching the 10th day in Pennsylvania—with the jury unable to come to a decision. I worked for over 30 years as a criminal lawyer and tried over 100 jury trials. So, what’s wrong with the Bill Cosby jury? Why can’t they reach a decision?

Of course, we don’t know what’s going on inside the locked room where the jurors are deliberating the fate of Bill Cosby, but I can offer a few ideas from my own experience with juries over the years.

In a criminal case, there must be a unanimous verdict—meaning all twelve people must agree on guilty or not guilty. It could be that the jury here can’t reach the total number. Maybe 3,4, or more people disagree and won’t change their positions.

Bill Cosby was charged with several counts. It could be the jury has a unanimous decision about one or two of the counts, but can’t reach a decision on another count. (Each “count” is either a separate accusation against a separate victim, or could be an accusation against one victim but at different levels of seriousness. For instance, one count could be against one victim for unlawful touching, while the next count could be against the same victim but for unlawful sexual penetration—a different action that also carries different penalties)

The jury may be weighing the believability of the victim’s testimony—as they have repeatedly asked the judge to read portions of testimony from the trial. The standard they must use is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” They may be questioning the quality of proof to decide if it rises to a level beyond a reasonable doubt.

Juries are instructed not to take into account their emotional responses to either the accused or the victims—but this is often impossible. Maybe, some of the jurors feel sorry for Bill Cosby and are hesitant to find him guilty of everything he’s accused of doing.

In any event, what does this mean for both Bill Cosby and the alleged victims? In my experience, if the jury is unable to come to a decision after all this time, chances are that more time in a locked room, isn’t going to change their minds. The judge should rule the case is a “mistrial.” It means no decision was reached by the jury and it is dismissed. That doesn’t mean Bill Cosby is out of the woods. The prosecutor may re-charge the case and start another trial with a new jury.

I’ve experienced this and I can tell you—that’s tough and expensive for both sides. Everyone would like to see this jury reach a decision.